resy_cuisines

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the location value is derived from prior responses and that there is no closed list of valid locations, which is a useful behavioral constraint. However, it does not mention any side effects, authentication requirements, or potential error conditions. For a simple read operation, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences, with the first sentence stating the primary purpose and the second providing parameter context. It is efficient and front-loads the key action. The second sentence is somewhat long but packs essential information about the parameter source and limitations. No wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It explains what the tool does, how to source the parameter, and a key limitation. It does not describe the exact return format (e.g., list of strings), but the purpose 'cuisines present' implies a list of cuisine names. For an agent, this is likely sufficient to invoke correctly, though a more explicit return description would raise it to 5.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already describes the location parameter as coming from a prior response. The description adds extra meaning by explaining that the value can be a short city code or numeric id, that it is returned as location_code, and that there is no separate closed list, so guessing is not possible. This goes beyond the schema and helps the agent understand the parameter's provenance and constraints.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'cuisines' scoped to a Resy location. It distinguishes this tool from sibling Resy tools like resy_search, resy_restaurant, and resy_events by its specific focus on cuisines. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately understandable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit guidance on the location parameter: it must come from a prior search/restaurant response and cannot be guessed. This tells the agent when it can use this tool (only with a known location) and the dependency on prior calls. However, it does not explicitly compare against alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for a single-purpose tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.